Multivariable calculus
Limit of x^3y/(x^6+y^2): Parabolas Are Not Enough
The limit of x^3 y/(x^6 + y^2) at the origin does not exist. Every line through the origin gives 0 and so does every parabola y = ax^2, but the cubic curve y = x^3 gives 1/2 at every point. Matching the denominator's two terms is what finds the disagreeing path.
The limit does not exist
| Path | Limit along it |
|---|---|
| along y = 0 | 0 |
| along y = x | 0 |
| along the parabola y = x^2 | 0 |
| along the cubic y = x^3 | 0.5 |
Escalating through the curves
Lines go first. Substituting and cancelling from top and bottom leaves a factor that vanishes.
The vertical line gives too, since its numerator is identically zero. Parabolas next: with the same cancellation happens one power higher, and the result is still zero.
Now match the denominator. The two terms and are the same size when is comparable to , so try the cubic .
The function is exactly everywhere on that curve. Lines give , the cubic gives , so the limit does not exist.
The systematic way to find the killer curve
Do not guess curves at random. Look at the denominator, set its two terms equal, and solve for one variable in terms of the other.
- Denominator : set , so .
- Substitute that curve and see whether the numerator survives at the same order.
- Here the numerator becomes , matching the denominator's , so the ratio is a nonzero constant.
- If the numerator came out at a higher order, the limit would be on that curve too and you would look for a proof instead.
The general family gives , which is at , at , and tends to as grows. Any two different choices of already disprove the limit.
The mistake: stopping once lines and parabolas agree
Students who have learned that lines are not enough often upgrade to parabolas and stop there. This function defeats that too. There is no fixed family of curves whose agreement proves a limit exists, because for any degree you can build a function that only fails on degree curves.
The reliable rule: path tests can only ever disprove. Once several paths agree, switch to an argument that covers all approaches at once, such as bounding by something that goes to zero. Here no such bound exists, since reaches arbitrarily close to the origin.
The three-line habit that keeps you honest: substitute lines, look at the denominator for the balancing curve, then either produce a disagreement or produce an inequality. Never conclude from agreement alone.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the polar method fail to detect this?
In polar form , and for each fixed with this tends to . Fixing means approaching along a ray, so polar coordinates used that way are just the line test again.
Is there a pattern connecting these textbook examples?
Yes. For the killer path is always , giving , while every curve with gives . Taking gives the familiar and gives this one.